Flood Theory

[RMB Furion]

Alright, before all of you flood in to start flaming the flood to a nice dry desert, this isn't about the flood of over 3000 years or more ago, this is about a theory of a planet in which a global flood could occur.

I would like to present a video from youtube that speaks of the Earth's flood, BUT, look at it not as the Earth's flood, but of a hypothetical event to a planet under all of those conditions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

RMB Furion wrote:

Alright, before all of you flood in to start flaming the flood to a nice dry desert, this isn't about the flood of over 3000 years or more ago, this is about a theory of a planet in which a global flood could occur.
I would like to present a video from youtube that speaks of the Earth's flood, BUT, look at it not as the Earth's flood, but of a hypothetical event to a planet under all of those conditions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Why?

It's already been shown that a global flood on Earth is impossible.

What's the point of your "hypothetical" video, then?

That a water-world is possible, if the physics of the earth were vastly different than it actually is?

Well- that was already obvious.

And, no, I didn't bother to actually look at your video....

[Dr Sausage]

RMB Furion wrote:

I would like to present a video from youtube that speaks of the Earth's flood, BUT, look at it not as the Earth's flood, but of a hypothetical event to a planet under all of those conditions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

My favorite part is when the guy says Earth once rotated in the opposite direction, but changed direction when it got hit by a comet.

[Darwins Stepchild]

Dr Sausage wrote:

<quoted text>
My favorite part is when the guy says Earth once rotated in the opposite direction, but changed direction when it got hit by a comet.

Oh Gawd. That sounds like something Velikovski would have said.

[RMB Furion]

I dunno Sausage, as Scientists have said, other large asteroids have changed the direction of other planets' rotations.

[Matt from Akron]

RMB Furion wrote:

I dunno Sausage, as Scientists have said, other large asteroids have changed the direction of other planets' rotations.

I highly doubt scientists have ever said that. Uranus's axis is perpendicular to the orbital plane, but I have never seen a scientific explanation of this phenomenon.

A link to your assertion, please.

[Darwins Stepchild]

RMB Furion wrote:

I dunno Sausage, as Scientists have said, other large asteroids have changed the direction of other planets' rotations.

I would consider the idea pretty much impossible. For one thing, the Earth's rotation matches with the rest of the solar system. That is a very good indication that it has always been in its current direction.

For another, the Earth's angular momentum is HUGE. A comet would have had an incredible velocity (and thus momentum) to change that. More likely, it would have shattered the Earth than change its direction of rotation. Since we don't see any signs of such shattering, it again is a very, very unlikely idea.

[Pete-o]

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
I would consider the idea pretty much impossible. For one thing, the Earth's rotation matches with the rest of the solar system. That is a very good indication that it has always been in its current direction.
For another, the Earth's angular momentum is HUGE. A comet would have had an incredible velocity (and thus momentum) to change that. More likely, it would have shattered the Earth than change its direction of rotation. Since we don't see any signs of such shattering, it again is a very, very unlikely idea.

RMB is probably confused magnetic poles reversing, he has aknack for misinterpreting everything.

[Nuggin]

RMB Furion wrote:

I dunno Sausage, as Scientists have said, other large asteroids have changed the direction of other planets' rotations.

Learn math RMB.

Take an armored truck full of nickels, put it on a turn table and get it spinning clockwise at one full rotation an hour.

Now stand back and throw as many baseballs at it as you like.

Did it ever reverse direction?

Try it will basketballs.

Earth is VERY BIG and has A LOT of mass.

There just AREN'T any comets/asteroids ANYWHERE NEAR big enough to significantly slow, let alone stop, let alone REVERSE Earth's rotation.

[Matt from Akron]

Pete-o wrote:

<quoted text>
RMB is probably confused magnetic poles reversing, he has aknack for misinterpreting everything.

Ahh, that's entirely possible, yes. It wouldn't be the first time I have seen someone confusing pole reversal with actual planetary flipping.

[Nuggin]

Matt from Akron wrote:

<quoted text>
Ahh, that's entirely possible, yes. It wouldn't be the first time I have seen someone confusing pole reversal with actual planetary flipping.

Nor the first time that RMB has taken a misunderstanding of one subject and stated that it applies to a completely different one.

[RMB Furion]

There is evidence of a global wobble you know... and I almost forgot one key factor... I think it was called the event that is suppose to take a few thousand years, the alignment that is suppose to shift the axis slightly, or the scientist's 2012 event I think they said.

By the way, baseballs do not have a noteable mass... hmmm, a planet being hit by an osmium asteroid would definitely have an effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmium

You forgot to put density and velocity into the equation pretty much. At what density and at what seed would an object have to have and what direction would it have to come from to change the direction of a planet? Size does not matter when compared to density.

If a diesel was compressed and kept it's density, but was now 1/5 or even 1/12 the size of the armored truck, it would still make the truck change direction and rotate the other way.

[Nuggin]

RMB Furion wrote:

There is evidence of a global wobble you know... and I almost forgot one key factor... I think it was called the event that is suppose to take a few thousand years, the alignment that is suppose to shift the axis slightly, or the scientist's 2012 event I think they said.

Tops wobble, they don't switch rotational direction.

If the Earth were to switch rotational direction, the amount of force resulting from that would strip the surface right off the Earth.

RMB Furion wrote:

By the way, baseballs do not have a noteable mass... hmmm, a planet being hit by an osmium asteroid would definitely have an effect.

Wow you are stupid.

The BIGGEST ASTEROID EVER DETECTED is 1 Ceres, it is .016% of Earth's mass.

A baseball's mass is 147g, making it almost exactly the same ratio to a 1 ton car as 1 Ceres is to Earth.

I was DEAD ON in my analogy.

RMB Furion wrote:

You forgot to put density and velocity into the equation pretty much. At what density and at what seed would an object have to have and what direction would it have to come from to change the direction of a planet? Size does not matter when compared to density.

I'm talking about mass, not size.

Velocity COULD be increased, but it would have to be increased to such a degree that it would blow THROUGH the crust of the Earth rather than impart it's force to negate the spin, like a bullet hitting a watermelon.

RMB, you clearly aren't good at this, you should stop.

[Kong]

Whereas Venus is NOT the earth, RMB does have a kernal of truth to his "impact theory" of retro-grade rotation.......

from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_ (planet)

Venus is currently moonless, though the asteroid 2002 VE68 presently maintains a quasi-orbital relationship with it.[39] According to Alex Alemi and David Stevenson of the California Institute of Technology, their recent study of models of the early solar system shows that it is very likely that, billions of years ago, Venus had at least one moon, created by a huge impact event.[40][41] About 10 million years later, according to Alemi and Stevenson, another impact reversed the planet's spin direction. The reversed spin direction caused the Venusian moon to gradually spiral inward[42] until it collided and merged with Venus. If later impacts created moons, those moons also were absorbed the same way the first one was. The Alemi/Stevenson study is recent, and it remains to be seen what sort of acceptance it will achieve in the scientific community.

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Did anyone actually bother to watch the silly video?

Is it worth watching?

Just mildly curious.

[chipfle]

Matt from Akron wrote:

<quoted text>
I highly doubt scientists have ever said that. Uranus's axis is perpendicular to the orbital plane, but I have never seen a scientific explanation of this phenomenon.
A link to your assertion, please.

Uranus' axis precesses and "wobbles" significantly, as would Earth's if not for the stableizing effect of our enormous (relatively) moon.

[Matt from Akron]

Kong wrote:

Whereas Venus is NOT the earth, RMB does have a kernal of truth to his "impact theory" of retro-grade rotation.......
from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_ (planet)
Venus is currently moonless, though the asteroid 2002 VE68 presently maintains a quasi-orbital relationship with it.[39] According to Alex Alemi and David Stevenson of the California Institute of Technology, their recent study of models of the early solar system shows that it is very likely that, billions of years ago, Venus had at least one moon, created by a huge impact event.[40][41] About 10 million years later, according to Alemi and Stevenson, another impact reversed the planet's spin direction. The reversed spin direction caused the Venusian moon to gradually spiral inward[42] until it collided and merged with Venus. If later impacts created moons, those moons also were absorbed the same way the first one was. The Alemi/Stevenson study is recent, and it remains to be seen what sort of acceptance it will achieve in the scientific community.

It's interesting, but a "model" to me is not evidence. It can't be verified... even the impact that produced the moon has some geological evidence to back it up.

If the Venus scenario did happen, it's likely that since it happened in the formative stages of the solar system, it was a planet-sized hunk of matter that collided with it, as opposed to something the size of the asteroids we see today. Given the probability Venus was still molten at the time, I guess it's conceivable that the planet could have absorbed such an impact and even changed direction. I just don't see anything like "rotation reversal" happening today, with what is available in the solar system as impactors.

[Matt from Akron]

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

Did anyone actually bother to watch the silly video?
Is it worth watching?
Just mildly curious.

I thought about it, but after considering the source, I decided I didn't want to waste a calorie clicking on the link.

[Kong]

Matt from Akron wrote:

<quoted text>
It's interesting, but a "model" to me is not evidence. It can't be verified... even the impact that produced the moon has some geological evidence to back it up.
If the Venus scenario did happen, it's likely that since it happened in the formative stages of the solar system, it was a planet-sized hunk of matter that collided with it, as opposed to something the size of the asteroids we see today. Given the probability Venus was still molten at the time, I guess it's conceivable that the planet could have absorbed such an impact and even changed direction. I just don't see anything like "rotation reversal" happening today, with what is available in the solar system as impactors.

Yeah, I know....just thought it pertained to the conversation at hand. Not that I buy into the whole "New Earth" or global flood nonsense.

[Dr Sausage]

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

Did anyone actually bother to watch the silly video?
Is it worth watching?
Just mildly curious.

I watched about half of it. Apparently it borrows heavily from Dr. Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory...

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hydroplate.htm